A company wanted to increase sales of its product and increase their product's exposure, so they did *something* that should have made it impossible for some people to use the product. Sounds ironic, but this was the company's intent. When buyers purchased this company's product and found they couldn't use it, it only helped the company's image (as well as the product's image). It wasn't until someone purchased the product and DID use it that the company faced potential lawsuits and product boycotts. The company initially did not discourage the use of their product, and spent millions of dollars to advertise the product.

So...can you find out what led to this ironic turn of events for this company and its product?

This is a real-life situation, involving a real company and a real product. It happened in the United States at one point in history. If during the pursuit of this puzzle's solution you recognize information, events or details and think you know the solution, please email your attempted spoiler - thank you!

Did it help the company becasue it made it seem like only certain people could use it? NoCould certain people not use it? No, it was available to anyoneCould everybody potentially use it? Yes - good qIs medicine relevant? Sports? Puzzles? None of these

Intriguing! Just wait...Was the company aiming for an upmarket image by excluding certain consumers? No, quite the oppositeSuch as men? Or women? Or people of certain races? Or social classes? N/AIs the price of the product relevant? Yes, it may help to know this

Did the company intend for people to use the product? Were they aware, before they began, that people would be unable to use it? Did they have an ulterior motive? Perhaps one that they did not mention?

Did the company intend for people to use the product? YES...and NOWere they who? aware, before they began, that people would be unable to use it? Some people were aware of this, but can you clarify who "they" are?Did they have an ulterior motive? NoPerhaps one that they did not mention? No

Does the item need a power supply? NoWas the thing that the company did to make it impossible to use something to do with compatability with a particular power supply? So no... Three point plugs relevant? No

Anything to do with the oil crisis? Electric cars? Neither

Just another thought.... Could this product be considered a "Giffen Good" i.e. one for which the demand for increases as the price increases. No

Was the product ridiculously expensive? No

Was it advertised as being tacky and vile, along the lines of 'don't buy this unless you're a nouveau-riche spiv'? Ha ha...no

Was it a financial services product? No

By excluding certain customers, did they increase market to others? Partial FA here - nobody was "excluded" from being a customerBy making it seem like they had more prestige or something? No

Did the customers have to buy another of the company's products to make the original product work? No

Were the company's actions entirely to do with profit? Well...yes and no. Yes, because they were hoping that existing buyers of their product would continue to buy, and that they could attract new buyers. No, because they intended a benefit for certain buyers.

Or were they making a point? Noprotesting against something? Noany relevant laws? Yes

"The company initially did not discourage the use of the product" ... so, did the company later discourage the use of the product? By certain people? Because of the boycotts and lawsuits? Did the use of the product cause any harm to anyone? Is gambling relevant? Tobacco?

Is one law relevant? More than one? Two categories of law, which likely include several individual lawsIs the concern of the law/laws driving? Voting? No to theseIs it related to marketing? No, but...Would the product fall under the law? In the strict sense of the law no, but part of getting to the solutions is figuring out what made people consider legal action.

Is the product electronic? NoDid the consumers use it for its intended purpose? Yes, most of them did, but a good q follows...For another purpose? No, but...Attempt to use it for its intended purpose? Ah YES - super q! Some consumers did this!For another purpose? Yes - for another purpose than what was intended.

Is the product a utensil? A tool? Is it used for hygiene? No to allDid some customers attempt to get high off it? NoGet drunk? No...but explorePerhaps hand sanitizer? Cough syrup? Vanilla extract? None

"The company initially did not discourage the use of the product" ... so, did the company later discourage the use YESof the product? Well...only to a degree (see next answer)By certain people? YES - good q!Because of the boycotts and lawsuits? No, this hadn't arisen yetDid the use of the product cause any harm to anyone? NO, but they thought it did!Is gambling relevant? Tobacco? No to both

Would it help to find out who the 'certain people' are? Men? Women? Children? Aristocrats? People with a particular job? People of a particular age? Soldiers? Prisoners? Dead people? The deaf? The blind? Former presidents of the USA? Heads of state? Alcoholics?

Did the boycotts and lawsuits happen because of the discouraging advice? Or in spite of it?

Is it an 'improve your French' course which isn't intended for French people? That sort of idea?

Is it the sort of product that can be purchased only once? If I bought it, would I ever need to buy it again?

Would it help to find out who the 'certain people' are? SureMen? Women? Children? Could be any of these, but in the particular case mostly children were involvedAristocrats? No People with a particular job? People of a particular age? Soldiers? Prisoners? Dead people? The deaf? The blind? Former presidents of the USA? Heads of state? Alcoholics? Any and all of these could have been the "certain people"

Did the boycotts and lawsuits happen Well, almost happened...because of the discouraging advice? No Or in spite of it? This is closer

Is it an 'improve your French' course which isn't intended for French people? That sort of idea? No, not this type

Is it the sort of product that can be purchased only once? Yes, but for a certain reasonIf I bought it, would I ever need to buy it again? Need to? That would be entirely up to you.Does the price vary according to who is buying it? No

The plot thickens. I'm wondering how on earth someone can buy a drink and not be able to use it!

By 'they couldn't use it', do you mean that they were physically unable to drink it? Unable to open the container? Or just unable to benefit from its properties?

Was it in a bottle so tightly sealed that wimps were not supposed to open it? Was there some sort of cryptic straw? A 'puzzle straw' that needed to be solved before you could drink it? (Hey, how lateral is that?)

Is it a soda? Yes Juice? Energy drink? Is it alcoholic? Iced tea? Normal tea? Coffee? Water? Milk? So it's none of these

The plot thickens. I'm wondering how on earth someone can buy a drink and not be able to use it! Well if you figure that out, you'll have solved the puzzle!

By 'they couldn't use it', do you mean that they were physically unable to drink it? Oh no...Unable to open the container? No...Or just unable to benefit from its properties? Yes, this

Was it in a bottle so tightly sealed that wimps were not supposed to open it? NoWas there some sort of cryptic straw? A 'puzzle straw' that needed to be solved before you could drink it? (Hey, how lateral is that?) Very lateral indeed, just not the case here

A drink with alleged medicinal properties, maybe? A magical elixir? Not the case, however in principle you are OTRT

Is there a misleading or ambiguous wording in the sales-pitch of this product? For instance, I'm thinking of the advert 'Drink and Drive' with a picture of an energy drink and a golf club ... someone might have tried to sue the company for having taken it too literally? (I suspect this is a horribly unrelated tangent, but hey.)

Coca-Cola? YesRelevant that it's made with coca leaf extracts? Which is where we get cocaine? No, not relevant

Is there a misleading or ambiguous wording in the sales-pitch of this product? For instance, I'm thinking of the advert 'Drink and Drive' with a picture of an energy drink and a golf club ... someone might have tried to sue the company for having taken it too literally? (I suspect this is a horribly unrelated tangent, but hey.) No, not this kind of thing

Is it relevant that some coin collecters clean coins with Coca-Cola? It's also very good for cleaning car hubcaps also. No, not relevant, but makes one wonder - if it can remove gunk from coins, what does it do to a person's digestive system?

Glass v. plastic bottles relevant? Are bottles at all relevant? No!Diet Coke relevant? I don't think so, at least not to the events in the puzzleIs the urban legend about Pop Rocks and Coke exploding Mikey's stomach relevant? No

In 1990, Coca Cola ran their MagiCan campaign. For this, they announced that random cans of Coke would be filled with money or coupons for prizes instead of soda. The MagiCan was designed to have a spring-loaded mechanism which would cause a tube to pop out of the can upon opening the can - inside the tube would be cash or a coupon. To fool the consumers, the prize cans were partially filled with water, so they felt just like a full soda can. When a young boy opened a MagiCan, he removed the tube, then saw that there was liquid in the can so he tasted the liquid (which was chlorinated water) - this water was drinkable due to a faulty seal which was supposed to prevent any of it from leaking out into the can and be drinkable. The boy's parents contacted attorneys, and there began to be several inquiries as to the safety of the product and Coca Cola's potential liability due to injury or sickness caused by faulty MagiCans. Coca Cola ran lengthy newspaper ads fully describing the campaign, urging anyone who opened a MagiCan NOT to drink anything from it, simply get the prize. So...

A company (Coca Cola) wanted to increase sales of its product and increase their product's exposure (cans of Coca Cola drinks), so they did *something* that should have made it impossible for some people to use the product. (they release MagiCans into the market, thinking people would realize the purpose was to distribute prizes, not meant to drink from these cans)

Sounds ironic, but this was the company's intent. When buyers purchased this company's product and found they couldn't use it (because it contained money or a coupon),

it only helped the company's image (as well as the product's image). (Because Coca Cola was giving away money and prizes)

It wasn't until someone purchased the product and DID use it that the company faced potential lawsuits and product boycotts. (Because a kid decided to take out the prize tube, then drink the interesting liquid which had filled the can due to a faulty seal)

The company initially did not discourage the use of their product, and spent millions of dollars to advertise the product. (And in the end, promoted safe use of MagiCans in newspaper ads).

I guess Galfisk recognized enough details to make the quick and correct jump to the solution. Your comments are appreciated - puzzles dealing with historic events are challenging, because either people immediately know the event based on the description, or soon recall it once the relevant details are discovered. Time to fire up the imagination again!

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.